Re: Josephus & DSS

Yirmiyahu:
>>My Hebrew still has a long way to go, but I think (?) that Ya'akov
was called "ha-Tzadiyk," not "ha-Tzeddek"? The former connotes the filling
of a relationship or b'riyt. I'm not aware of any implication in the title
peculiar to the Therapeutae.<<
Judith:
<Actually, that's 50% correct. the adjective is indeed ha-tzaddiq (tzedeq
is a noun!) but the bearer of that title is not Jacob but Joseph.>
Yirmiyahu:
Since the Hebrew grammar turned out as I thought, it's 100%. It was
Ya'akov
Ben-Yosef Ben-David who was the first N'tzarim paqiyd and called "ha-
Tzadiyq." Jack, and/or you, are confusing him with some Yosef I'm not
familiar with among the Essenes in Y'rushalayim. Who is the Yosef you're
referring to?
Judith:
>One more point: idiosyncratic transliterations are very hard to read. So
here are some helpful hints for the future:.... Also, it's important to
differentiate the two letters kaf and qof by using k and q respectively.
Otherwise some readers may be bum-steered as to the spelling.<
Yirmiyahu:
You've convinced me relative to kaf and qof because, in addition to
your argument, it is just as effective in preserving something more likely
to be pronounced closer to the Hebrew spoken word. I'll do my best to
remember to change my spell checker, change my habit in this respect, and
adopt this change, as it really does seem better in all respects.
I don't transliterate idiosyncratically because I don't
transliterate. I phonemicize. These aren't the same and shouldn't be
expected to be the same. I stress pronunciation over spelling. Most
laypersons couldn't find v'hamiytO in a dictionary regardless of how it was
transliterated because they don't know how to break out the SHOResh or the
mode construction. But at least by phonemicizing it they would be far more
likely to pronounce it intelligibly so that a Hebrew speaker would
immediately recognize what they're talking about. Since a Hebrew speaker
would immediately recognize their pronunciation I have trouble understanding
why phonemicization represents a problem, while the problems with
transliteration are obvious.
Where spelling and vowelization of a word is a pivotal dispute
transliteration is more understandable. In such rare cases I'd resort to
simply spelling the word out (pey - kof - yud - dalet) and giving the
vowels, points and cantillation. However, the words I've used are not in
dispute that I'm aware of. Scholars know how to spell these words. But how
many readers can pronounce the scientific encryptions that have no meaning,
neither oral (which supports phonemicization) nor written (which would be
Hebrew -- only indirectly via decryption of transliteration), except to the
scholars? Though not comfortably fluent yet, I read, speak, and translate
Hebrew, yet I find the scientific transliteration bears no semblance to
Hebrew words and too alien to Hebrew to bother decrypting. Most Hebrew
isn't vowelized, so encrypting vowels and other nuances in English letters
just makes a nearly unintelligible mess that requires decrypting even by
someone fluent in Hebrew. It's easier to go get a book and look up the
Hebrew, followed by "Oh, THAT'S what they're transliterating!"
Yirtzeh to most non- Hebrew- speaking laypersons you ask will be
pronounced YURTZ-eh and Kippur will be pronounced KIP-per; both of which
mangle Hebrew. While perhaps not your convention, it's transliteration we
have to think for a radio announcer wishing Jewish listeners "Happy
TchaNOOKah!" (kha-nuk-AH -- probably the first time many will pronounce it
reasonably accurately). Mispronunciation is also invited by paqid (PACK-id,
or PAKE-id). The use of doubled letters also evokes different rules of
pronunciation in English than in Hebrew. Tzaddiq would invariably be
pronounced TZADiq, perhaps leading to confusion with TZEDiq (S'phardiy /
Israeli pronunciation) -- particularly since the Teymaniy pronunciation of
this noun is TZADiq.
These are rules English speakers most generally apply to pronounce
the written word. It doesn't seem productive to me to use a system that,
when said to an Israeli, would prompt the Israeli (of any era) to reply
"There's no such word as that in Hebrew." Particularly since both Tan"kh
and Oral Law place the greater emphasis on the spoken word. An English-
speaker would have a far better chance of communicating with the same
Israeli trying to pronounce pa-QIYD. All they need to know is about six
rules that _always_ apply: "iy" is always pronounced as "ee"; "a" is always
pronounced as in father; "ay" always like "eye"; "ey" always like the a in
sale; "u" always like "oo" in poor; "e" alone always like in Ted) -- the key
is _always_ -- and they're up and running at least understandably. If one
knows Hebrew, what problem is there in _spelling_ paQIYD, kiyPUR, yiyrTZEH,
etc.? Grade schoolers here known how to spell these words. It's not like
we're disputing how to communicate v'ham-iyt-U vs v'hem-iyt-O. Even with
these there's no doubt which is which either in the Israeli dialect (above)
or in the older and more authentic Teymaniy dialect: v'hawm-iyt-U vs
v'ham-iyt-O. Certainly lay readers can read, and pronounce, these
phonemicizations much more accurately than the transliterations.
Even the Teymaniy (with one exception), Bavliy and S'phardiy
(Israeli) pronunciations are simple to communicate recognizably with
phonemicization.
I recognize that phonemicization doesn't communicate every nuance or
pronunciation, much less spelling, but it's immediate likeness to spoken
Hebrew, in contrast to the decryption process necessary to bring
transliteration into some semblance of the spoken Hebrew words, does bring
the proper pronunciation of Hebrew into the realm of the recognizable for
most English- speaking laypersons -- something which cannot be said for
transliteration. Scholars are already familiar with the spellings while
laypersons, and, I suspect, often not the scholars either, can derive proper
pronunciations from transliterations that a Hebrew- speaker would easily
recognize. Particularly since I often see Jews visiting Israel speaking
something or other that no one here is able to recognize until they write it
down. Though you may not have this problem, many others do.
I look forward to the day, as I'm sure you will, when we can simply
write the Hebrew on Internet. There is already a capability here in Israel
but it isn't compatible with all platforms. In the meantime, I remain
persuaded that, in most cases, phonemicization is MUCH more important than
transliteration.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Yirmiyahu Ben-David, Pakiyd 16; Ra'anana, Israel
K'hiylat Ha-N'tzarim
(Global Congregation of Nazarene Jews)
N'tzarim Virtual Community Center:
www.netvision.net.il/~netzarim
N'tzarim... Authentic
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *